Career prospects X income = Success !
W2 or 1099
This is great fun!
Anyway, as described in a previous post...
Should someone pursue a career that takes X years to train for, if the
(probability of success) x (years employed in field) equals some value Y ?
A good measure for deciding to pursue a career might be approximated by
the value Y/X.
This equation can be modified to include an income coefficient,
Success = (Y/X)Income.
Estimates for some typical careers:
Doctor: Success = ((.8)(30)/8))$150 = 450
Lawyer: ((.8)(30)/8))$100 = 300
Scientist (low end): ((.2)(5)/10)$30 = 3
Scientist (high end): ((1)(20)/10)$100 = 200
Engineer (B.S): ((.5)(10)/5)$60 = 60
Stockbroker: ((.5)(10)/1)$150 = 750
.
.
.
I don't know if this helps any...
I would say that the doctor route is the best, since you get career longevity,
high pay, with a moderate educational investment.
Another factor involves risk - and this may be the most important reason to
avoid science. With a relatively high risk of failure, it would only make sense
to pursue careers with a relatively high payoff. Is this stating the obvious?
John Byrd
John Nguyen
In article <19980310051...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, w2or...@aol.com (W2 or 1099) wrote:
>
>This is great fun!
This does look fun :-)
Regarding the below formula, I can see a few problems. For example, Y is
divided by the number of years in training. Thus a person who trained only
two years has double the success index as a person who trained four years
(given all else is equal). But the incremental effort of 2 years might not be
all that much.
Perhaps we can divide Y by some constant + (coefficient < 1) * Years. Of
course, we realize this is just fun and games :-)
John
>
>Anyway, as described in a previous post...
>
> Should someone pursue a career that takes X years to train for, if the
> (probability of success) x (years employed in field) equals some value Y ?
>
> A good measure for deciding to pursue a career might be approximated by
> the value Y/X.
>
> This equation can be modified to include an income coefficient,
> Success = (Y/X)Income.
>
>Estimates for some typical careers:
>
>Doctor: Success = ((.8)(30)/8))$150 = 450
>Lawyer: ((.8)(30)/8))$100 = 300
>Scientist (low end): ((.2)(5)/10)$30 = 3
>Scientist (high end): ((1)(20)/10)$100 = 200
>Engineer (B.S): ((.5)(10)/5)$60 = 60
>Stockbroker: ((.5)(10)/1)$150 = 750
>..
>..
>..
Joshua Halpern
: Should someone pursue a career that takes X years to train for, if the
: (probability of success) x (years employed in field) equals some value Y ?
: A good measure for deciding to pursue a career might be approximated by
: the value Y/X.
: This equation can be modified to include an income coefficient,
: Success = (Y/X)Income.
: Estimates for some typical careers:
: Doctor: Success = ((.8)(30)/8))$150 = 450
: Lawyer: ((.8)(30)/8))$100 = 300
: Scientist (low end): ((.2)(5)/10)$30 = 3
: Scientist (high end): ((1)(20)/10)$100 = 200
: Engineer (B.S): ((.5)(10)/5)$60 = 60
: Stockbroker: ((.5)(10)/1)$150 = 750
: .
These are really a bunch of WAGNERS (Wild Assed Guess No Explanation
Required) The stockbroker one is way off, lots of people who get
their Series 7's never build a book and leave after a few years at
most. Why do you think there are always openings for new brokers?
OTOH, they often go to other sales jobs such as real estate. I think
your enginering (BS) number for probability of success (.5) and
career length (10) is also way too low. You should increase
the Doctor's training to 9-10 years (which makes a difference).: .
: .
: Another factor involves risk - and this may be the most important reason to
: avoid science. With a relatively high risk of failure, it would only make sense
: to pursue careers with a relatively high payoff. Is this stating the obvious?
This depends on how you define success. If you define success for
a quack as a position as head of a department in a teaching hospital,
the probability of success would go way down there too. Same for
science. What is success in your mind? Would a sales job for
a high tech company count? I know several folks who have taken
that path and are happy. I know two physicists who work finding
rattles in things (air conditioning systems and cars? They use
their physics. They are happy, did they succeed?
josh halpern
John Mihic
>
>I would say that the doctor route is the best, since you get career longevity,
>high pay, with a moderate educational investment.
>
>Another factor involves risk - and this may be the most important reason to
>avoid science. With a relatively high risk of failure, it would only make
sense
>to pursue careers with a relatively high payoff. Is this stating the obvious?
>
>John Byrd
It is pretty obvious, but also obviously not the whole story. What you don't
factor in is the satisfaction you get out of a job. Even though stockbrokers
and physicians may make a ton of money, those types of jobs just don't rock my
boat, although many people find them extremely satisfying. If financial
security/success is the only major factor important for someone making a career
decision, then your equations make a lot of sense. If on the other hand,
you're like me and would put a Lugar in your mouth if one morning you woke up
and realized you were an accountant, well then maybe you should sit down and
contemplate some more just how you are going to be spending those long hours at
work....
Cheers,
John
russell martin
W2 or 1099 wrote:
> Estimates for some typical careers:
>
> Doctor: Success = ((.8)(30)/8))$150 = 450
> Lawyer: ((.8)(30)/8))$100 = 300
> Scientist (low end): ((.2)(5)/10)$30 = 3
> Scientist (high end): ((1)(20)/10)$100 = 200
> Engineer (B.S): ((.5)(10)/5)$60 = 60
> Stockbroker: ((.5)(10)/1)$150 = 750
>
> high pay, with a moderate educational investment.
>
An interesting analysis, but I might disagree about the moderate
educational investment of doctors...4 years of college, 4 of med
school, a year or so interning and then several more of residency
(with extremely long hours in some cases), plus maybe a M.S. or Ph.D.
on the side (I've worked with some of those). And then, with HMOs,
etc. setting your fees, I'm not so sure...
It sounds to me like getting trained in chaos theory, nonlinear systems,
etc., and working for a stock brokerage could be a) interesting and b)
well paid from what I've heard. Half considering it myself...
--
Russell Martin R. L. Martin and Associates
russell...@mail.wdn.com www.rmartin.com
->Insert pithy quotation here.<-
Arthur E. Sowers
On 10 Mar 1998, W2 or 1099 wrote:
>
> This is great fun!
>
> Anyway, as described in a previous post...
>
> Should someone pursue a career that takes X years to train for, if the
> (probability of success) x (years employed in field) equals some value Y ?
>
> A good measure for deciding to pursue a career might be approximated by
> the value Y/X.
>
> This equation can be modified to include an income coefficient,
> Success = (Y/X)Income.
>
> Estimates for some typical careers:
>
> Doctor: Success = ((.8)(30)/8))$150 = 450
> Lawyer: ((.8)(30)/8))$100 = 300
> Scientist (low end): ((.2)(5)/10)$30 = 3
> Scientist (high end): ((1)(20)/10)$100 = 200
> Engineer (B.S): ((.5)(10)/5)$60 = 60
> Stockbroker: ((.5)(10)/1)$150 = 750
> .
> .
> .
>
> I don't know if this helps any...
>
> I would say that the doctor route is the best, since you get career longevity,
> high pay, with a moderate educational investment.
>
> Another factor involves risk - and this may be the most important reason to
> avoid science. With a relatively high risk of failure, it would only make sense
> to pursue careers with a relatively high payoff. Is this stating the obvious?
>
> John Byrd
>
>
>
You are pretty much on target. But there is a trade-off factor as well.
Some might argue that the "fun" component is worth paying the
"consequences" for.
Art Sowers
-------------------------------------------------------
Written in the public interest, the essays on
"Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs" are located at:
http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/homepage.htm
hit stats: http://www.access.digex.net/~arthures/.stats
Snail mail adr to me: P.O.Box 489, Georgetown, DE 19947
Email: arth...@access.digex.net
My "home" newsgroup: sci.research.careers
-------------------------------------------------------